This invites more questions than answers, like: what problem? What solutions? How do you decide which project worthy of fundings? Which NGO? How are they chosen? Why? And many others. As I said... a whitepaper might helps us greatly.

I can see that your website is still not working. It's been two months? Three?

Interesting insight, I could agree and see a reason when someone new to a field and tried to build their portfolio, there could be a tendency of being myopic, where they only focused on "the now". After all, expertise is something that comes with experience. Although, I have to rebut that there is a line --be it fine or thin-- between being careless and couldn't-care-less on reputation building.

Nonetheless, I've messaged ahmim about this thread, hopefully they would engage on this discussion once they're online.

They --and by "they" I'm referring to one person with two different account-- have four, not only two projects with similar red flags. I think it is quite agreeable that they don't care, like you said.

Regarding their reaction towards a warning, that's a bit complicated, aibon as the OP of Lamina accusation thread had warned them on the 28th and they locked the thread after. But if we inspect closely, the campaign has ended on 26th, so it doesn't really matter whether the BM locked it or not.

Thank you for the input, though, I'll leave a negative feedback with regards to their campaign quality.

---

Edit:

Jay-suss, I think I really need my sleep, my brain started to working slower and slower, I forgot that I want to add one interesting thing I found upon slipping into their tg channel.



I've never joined a TG campaign --at least not that I can remember-- so I'm not sure if this is normal or not. Is it? Wouldn't it mean the participant spamming and unethically talking and promoting their projects on other projects?

---

Edit 2: for aibon's reply below mine.

Upon leaving negative feedback on Crypto_Dotar I just realized that someone has raised a type-1 flag against them, and it's currently active. I wonder if it's necessary to raise similar flag for ahmim. I have to say that your argument has its merit, and a part of my logic agreed with it, but the very last part of my opening post prevail on the battle with myself for the ethic on raising flag; which is why I also still abstained from Crypto_Dotar's flag.

I think I'll take it to sleep and think about it more thoroughly tomorrow with a clearer head whether it's appropriate to raise a type-1 flag against ahmim with consideration of the long term sake of newbie investors... if no one had raised it already during my beauty sleep.

Umm... I think you've just got bamboozled by them. Yes, they locked the bounty thread and it's no longer available for any post for proof of posting on TG or twitter, but I think that's more because the campaign has already ended, so the BM essentially has nothing to lose. His job is done, he locked the thread as "a show of remorse" while there's actually not much difference whether he left it open or closed.

Ahh yes, thanks for reminding me about this point, that part was left out forgotten and unmentioned. I actually did the investigation about Epnoc in "installment", little by little when I have free time and that address is one of the aspect I DDed on the earlier phase [ignore the other screenshots, they were materials for other investigation, LOL].

---

So, continuing what aibon reminded me, I did a stroll on "street view" on my earlier investigation on Maps and with a little effort finally meet their "neighbor", F324, Sector 63, Noida


So, their address, F325, would be one of the three in front of them, either the dead center, the one on the left, or the one on the right. Problem is... here's the three of them, which... doesn't evoke any confidence for the platform.

Ahh, I was just finished posting another thread on reputation board with a topic still related to this accusation. You might want to give it a read. This is not the first scam project they promoted.

Foreword: I think this is the first time I write on this board. I'm not really sure if my topic would suits better on Reputation or on Scam Accusation, but since one may argue that the person in question did not directly scamming the community and instead just facilitating the scam projects through a very careless DD --if they did any-- for the campaign they managed, I think Reputation fits better.

---

Flag type-1 against Crypto Bountyes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3185

---

I've put this case on my plate for a few weeks since the first case against ahmim raised, took a glance at their post history, and frowned upon the findings of the bounty campaigns they managed. Couple that with a negative feedback given for bounty abuse [though at that time I didn't look at the reference link], I commited myself to give their projects a sweep when I have time at hand.

Today's the day.

So, first thing first, ahmim and Crypto_Dotar was found to be a connected bounty abuser by Stalker22 back in 4th of February 2023.

Now, these are the campaign started by each of them, where most of them are followed by red flags found by several users:

ahmim:
Bounty thread:

• [Bounty] 💥EPNOC The Next-Generation Hybrid Crypto Exchange 💱 10000$ Token, found to be plagiarizing whitepaper by yours truly, holydarkess, a.k.a. me
• 💥[Limited]💥 Pi Chain Bounty Campaign. Budget: 7000$ BNB | 4 Week., found to be plagiarizing whitepaper and fake team profile and several other red flags by, uhh... I think it'll be more to the community effort as everyone is pitching in
• [💥 Limited Open💥] Lamina Trade Bounty | 100k$ worth of LAMT Token | 4 Weeks.💥, found to be plagiarizing whitepaper and fake team profile, first unearthed by albon
• [💥Bounty Open 💥]Fratun Coin Bounty | 5k$ Busd + 5k$ Fratun Coin | 4 week 💥, well, haven't thoroughly check this one, but a quick scan informed me the project is an MLM with no team and a very vague roadmap, which I wouldn't be surprised if it ended an exit-scam as well

Crypto_Dotar:
Bounty thread: [Open] Millennia Token Community Bounty | 350$ Usdt | 1 Week, found to be plagiarizing whitepaper and fake team profile, by albon

The interesting thing about those projects is that all of them didn't have a representative here, didn't create an account or ANN, simply doing bounty --which I think will not be paid at the end of the period-- which I believe was done deliberately  in order to make their exit-scam easier, with the bounty's purpose is like what examplens said,


a.k.a., more exposure to the clueless to invest on those hit-and-run projects. I wouldn't even be surprised if all of them were ran by the same team --if not one person-- who deliberately choose these this bounty-manager-wanna-be with poor reputation, knowing they won't bother doing any background check.

---

Edit: ahh, almost forgot, the purpose of this thread is to ask whether it's fair to leave both of the account --owned by the same person-- negative feedback for this issue, or would that be seen as unfair, given some more reputable BM also has one or two questionable projects which passed their screening and leave a dent on cryptocommunity, and they didn't tagged. So, does a negative feedback deemed appropriate or should it be just a slap on their hand with a ruler?

---

Edit 2 [13 June 2023]:
Another of their alt, Crypto Bountyes come with another questionable project, Plagiarized Whitepaper - MetaSystem Token

---

Edit 3 [15 June 2023]:
Adding a flag against Crypto Bountyes on the top part of this post

What happened: Plagiarizing whitepaper and no team member
Suspect's Profile Link: N/A [They don't have an official account here, far as I know. However, we have...]
BM's Profile Link: ahmim
Suspect's Website: https://epnoc.io/ | archived
Suspect's ANN thread: N/A
Suspect's Bounty thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5436868.0 | archived
Suspect's Documents: https://epnoc.io/static/media/EPNOC%20Whitepaper.b42fe325.pdf | archived
Plagiarized Source: https://degrain.gitbook.io/docs/ | archived

Additional Notes:
They do provide a bibliography, though not exactly on the academic format, nor that I found these sources being cited on their WP --I'm not really looking into them, though-- but this one that's cleverly slightly adjusted, is not on their list of sources.



Some screenshot for easy view:

As I am currently wearing their signature, I will perceive myself as automatically biased, and thus will exclude myself from overseeing this matter. However, I'd like to think that straightening one matter that was asked to be clarified as something that fall on the realm of acceptable.

I've been waiting for someone else --which not on their campaign, and thus shared the same situation as me-- to clarify this, but as there were none...

First, allow me to reupload your image with ibb --I don't know the correct coding to make the image from imgur shown-- with reference to original image source below it, sans the second image, which a lengthy email summarized as "CoinPlay is not registered on curacao-egaming.com."


Source: https://imgur.com/a/uJXPv2p


Source: https://imgur.com/a/SWkzSTU

Second, I'd like to invite you to read this article.

To summarize, for anyone too lazy to read them, there are several license providers in Curacao. Each gambling site --which registered on the said license provider-- are mandated to put the seal of the said licensor on their website, which shall redirect players to the verification page of the licensor, and thus enable players to prove if the claim made by the betting platform that they're licensed under the X provider is true or false.

Third, I'd like to point out that the customer service whom in contact with you explained something in harmony with the summary of the article I wrote above, that you can easily prove their registration by clicking the seal at the bottom of their page.

The simple problem here is, you misunderstood and think they said that they're licensed under "curacao egaming" as in the literal name of the license provider, while their license --as shown on the bottom of their page-- is under antillephone




And the result will be,



That said and clarified, I'll go back as a mere reader following this case.

2 hours because your posts are made in between discussion about the platform and some bets --which, the main topic of their ANN-- and I have to at least glanced at every single posts to be sure which posts addressed your issue and which one can be ignored because it engages om the platform's feature or recent bets, and then going back and forth to see the consistency between statements to make sure I got a good foot on both sides of the story, even for the slightest footing.

If you want me to spend 1 minute reading the first post I found upon trying to track down your case, it'll be this one. Yes, it'll be 1 minute, surely even less. And yes, it'll "dispel" most of other contradicting and intersecting posts, but I don't think that'll be in your interest if I did so.

Just to comment on your remark, I can't see how people clarifying that one known issue was fixed instantly made them "the friends".

Lucky for us, me having been reading the 20 pages of their thread, was instantly familiarized with the topic. It's already fixed, as vouched by three users, which replied on the page after it.

That post/issue was discussed a few post above the post made by betnomi explaining to OP whats his problem is.

Hi, I hope it's just a simple case of oversight and you didn't see my post, thus not replying me, or realized that your flagship is far from ready, yet you've conduct a token sale, because it's started to looks not good. I checked again today, your presale has begun and your "flagship" still stuck on the same state as how it was last week.

I've been watching this thread for days and to be honest was actually quite reluctant to dive into this hole as OP's case was from the 31st of October, cluttered between 20 pages of betnomi's ANN thread --before OP decided to publish an scam accusation-- which make it quite challenging to get familiarized with the case and crosscheck all the statements made by both parties.

But I wanted to comment on your post here about how --IMO-- betnomi has tried their best to attend the cases you mentioned as well as your question here I quoted above and thought it'll be better to reply here altogether as I'll be able to give explanation related to the case the way I perceived it --of course, stretched that long across that many pages, I might missed one or two key points.

And, there goes two hours of trying to understand the curious case of this... cicada. I want to make it a very academic-looking post with links referencing to statements wherever possible, but for that I'll have to re-dig the 20 pages again, and I'm not that... fond of a mini brain stroke, so here it goes:

Simplified, OP made bets, rejected by the betting provider, complained to betnomi, betnomi tried to persuade the bookie to give an exception and make it a winning bet instead of voided the bet. Meanwhile, their security team found suspicious behavior on OP's account which prompt them to ask for the basic KYC --or maybe intermediate, not sure which-- that OP also failed, which according to OP's defense is due to a typo, which escalate betnomi to ask for advance level of KYC, that, according to their explanation, is not the usual thing they do


Meanwhile, OP also made the case even more interesting by simultaneously reaching to several gambling authorities that kinda made betnomi had to answer to those several different platforms as well.

So, in layman's term, the required documents and "inflexibility" from betnomi was because OP got flagged and failed to perform the easier level of KYC.

---

Edit: and then I think, "ahh hell, why not spare two more minutes to dig one post that's became the basis of my post, so here it is,

I think this is the first time I joined such event, and I joined simply for the sake of curiosity, so I just choose a number, right?

66 - holydarkness

Thanks.

This is quite a curious thing, they're quite attentive on the other scam accusation thread raised against them, and they've been informed about this thread twice; by me and by by BitcoinGirl.Club.



I wondered if they thought we are referring to the aforementioned case, not realizing we are talking about a different one. Let me try to PM them again, this time with something clearer.

If they're online after I sent the PM and still not appearing here, I'll support the flag, but not because I believe one side is correct and sure which side cheated who, it's to persuade them to give a better explanation with concrete evidences against your case.

---

Edit: 2nd PM sent,

---

Edit 2: I've got a reply, as mentioned below by Poika5, Betnomi had given their answer for this issue in reply to examplens on their ANN, stating as screenshoted.

---

Edit 3: as well as mentioned by examplens right below Poika5's. LOL, suddenly we move at a very quick pace.

If I may add what examplens said, OP, once successful, please provide the proof that you've successfully withdrawn your fund so this case can be marked as solved.

I don't think they're a representative or involved at any official degree with the project, their posts on both threads are:

On the ANN thread,
https://ninjastic.space/post/61783407
https://ninjastic.space/post/61784145
https://ninjastic.space/post/61805007
https://ninjastic.space/post/61814823 [same as what's posted on bounty]

On the bounty thread,
https://ninjastic.space/post/61784205
https://ninjastic.space/post/61809607
https://ninjastic.space/post/61814815 [same as what's posted on ANN]

Which, IMO, if not yet another of their random posts, is one of their attempt to participate on this contest


I just glanced at their ANN, though, so I'm not sure what's the contest is about, but I think it's safe to assume they're not part of the team, because them selling the account would be illogical, given the campaign --and thus, the project-- were only on a hiatus and will come back at one point,

---

Agreed on this, I think the best approach here is to mark the account so that any buyer [a bit curious, who want to buy a newbie account, anyway?] wouldn't be interested to bid.

Edit: oh, it was a copper with one merit, so it's a junior copper instead of newbie

If anyone speaks Russian, might want to check this user as well, guron143, I noticed he opposed 4 of the 7 flags raised against the 12 users connected to farlack. I think there's a possibility they're one of the alt too, I don't speak Russian though, and most of their posts are in Russian, so I can't dig anything myself.

BPIP: https://bpip.org/flaglog.aspx?opposer=guron143

This kinda seals the main point of the case, that Amph wanted to sell his account, disregarding who messaged who first, or why, or any other questions. I'll leave a neutral feedback as well, so future users would know the possibility of this account had moving hand.

I don't have anything against philipma1957, and I said this simply to give you a better assessment of the situation.

Though Philip would love to help, and most likely he'll more than willing to do it on pro bono basis so that no one need to send anything to his address, what he said above and what BitcoinGirl.Club said two posts ahead are things worth considering.

If any, you will burden him with a task of verifying and ensuring that the data from both ends are authentic and unfabricated, not to mention that if his verdict didn't works in your favor, you might feels cheated etc., I am not saying he'll take side --I'm sure he won't-- but it'll be best that if you really willing to ask a third party arbitrator and gave your data, to go with platforms out there who overseeing disputes and providing such mediation, whose decision are generally seen as more neutral and authoritative, and whose moee equipped with necessary tools and knowledge to verify the evidences submitted.

If I may repeat my suggestion, CasinoGuru might be a good option that you want to consider. Of course, we all understand correctly that since both party agreed to seek a third party mediation, once the third party is chosen and agreed by both sides, both has to comply with whatever verdict given by the arbitrator?

Very good job, OP. I take a look after their whitepaper and found another snippet that they copied from another project called "Captain Glory"^[1].


 

I also ran a check through their team and found something interesting, that they dared to use the real names of the people they use as their team, but the backgrounds described on the suspect's website and their real job history clearly shows they're not connected to this project at all and their name is being used without them being aware of it.

The three that I found:

---

As for the BM, they currently have a questionable project before that's raised against them --initially built on a wrong basis, but it developed into a possible scam with the newfound foundation-- it's quite unfortunate that Mr. Mattei is yet to reply me on TG to seal the case.

I've been wanting to take a deeper look at the BM, as a quick glance at their projects gave an impression to me that they just blindly accepting poor quality and borderline questionable projects, but my weeks has been quite crazy these days. I hope I can do a thorough scan trough the project they promoted in a near future.

Have you notified the BM for this case?

---

^[1]I'd like to mention that the name is somewhat familiar to my brain, it kept tugging a thread that I cant grasp that I think I've read the name somewhere on this forum, but a quick search with Ninjastic brought no result, so maybe it's just my imagination and it's just another project that never stepped their foot on this forum.